From Clement.David at esi-group.com Mon Apr 3 08:14:33 2017 From: Clement.David at esi-group.com (=?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgRGF2aWQ=?=) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 06:14:33 +0000 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] AMPL toolbox In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> Hi Jean-Pierre, Did you try contacting the maintainer Yann Colette ? This will be good to have its opinion on that. He may be able to port it quickly. At least I suggest you to open an issue on the toolbox or on scilab bugzilla (category toolbox) if there is no other way to contact the maintainer. FYI currently there is no planned work to port external?toolboxes by ESI (formerly S/E). Last year, I suggest you to try porting it yourself and ask for help on the ML. Thanks, -- Cl?ment Le vendredi 31 mars 2017 ? 09:50 -0400, Jean-Pierre Dussault a ?crit?: > Hi all! > > is there a plan to adapt the toolbox soon?? > https://atoms.scilab.org/toolboxes/ampl_toolbox > > > I teach classes in the summer term beginning on may the first. I will be? > using this toolbox. If it is not ported, I will have to stick to 5.5.X? > with its infamous "stacksize"... > > > Thx, > > JPD > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev From stephane.mottelet at utc.fr Mon Apr 3 08:53:02 2017 From: stephane.mottelet at utc.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?St=c3=a9phane_Mottelet?=) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 08:53:02 +0200 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] AMPL toolbox In-Reply-To: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> References: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> Message-ID: Hello Cl?ment, Le 03/04/2017 ? 08:14, Cl?ment David a ?crit : > Hi Jean-Pierre, > > Did you try contacting the maintainer Yann Colette ? This will be good to have its opinion on that. > He may be able to port it quickly. At least I suggest you to open an issue on the toolbox or on > scilab bugzilla (category toolbox) if there is no other way to contact the maintainer. > > FYI currently there is no planned work to port external toolboxes by ESI (formerly S/E). BTW are there plans to port a *decent* and internal optimization package ? S. > Last year, > I suggest you to try porting it yourself and ask for help on the ML. > > Thanks, > > -- > Cl?ment > > Le vendredi 31 mars 2017 ? 09:50 -0400, Jean-Pierre Dussault a ?crit : >> Hi all! >> >> is there a plan to adapt the toolbox soon? >> https://atoms.scilab.org/toolboxes/ampl_toolbox >> >> >> I teach classes in the summer term beginning on may the first. I will be >> using this toolbox. If it is not ported, I will have to stick to 5.5.X >> with its infamous "stacksize"... >> >> >> Thx, >> >> JPD >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> dev at lists.scilab.org >> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev From Clement.David at esi-group.com Mon Apr 3 09:30:47 2017 From: Clement.David at esi-group.com (=?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgRGF2aWQ=?=) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 07:30:47 +0000 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] AMPL toolbox In-Reply-To: References: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> Message-ID: <1491204646.3433.4.camel@esi-group.com> Hi St?phane, Le lundi 03 avril 2017 ? 08:53 +0200, St?phane Mottelet a ?crit?: > BTW are there plans to port a *decent* and internal optimization package ? Why not but what do you mean by *decent* ? using an external solver ? IMHO Optimization is a wide topic where there is a lot of different solvers available. The current Scilab implementation might not be sufficient for all needs but cover some of the common use-cases. -- Cl?ment From contact at pierre-vuillemin.fr Mon Apr 3 09:44:02 2017 From: contact at pierre-vuillemin.fr (Pierre Vuillemin) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:44:02 +0200 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] AMPL toolbox In-Reply-To: <1491204646.3433.4.camel@esi-group.com> References: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> <1491204646.3433.4.camel@esi-group.com> Message-ID: While it is not internal (and not necessarily decent at this point ^^), I am developing a toolbox for optimization [1] in Scilab. Its aim is firstly to provide a convenient way to formulate optimization problems. It is currently very limited (mainly dense linear optimization problems [2] + some quadratic problems) and paused due to some porting issue with Scilab 6...but still, it may be usable at some point in the future :). Regards, Pierre Le 03.04.2017 09:30, Cl?ment David a ?crit : > Hi St?phane, > > Le lundi 03 avril 2017 ? 08:53 +0200, St?phane Mottelet a ?crit : > >> BTW are there plans to port a *decent* and internal optimization package ? > > Why not but what do you mean by *decent* ? using an external solver ? > > IMHO Optimization is a wide topic where there is a lot of different > solvers available. The current > Scilab implementation might not be sufficient for all needs but cover > some of the common use-cases. > > -- > Cl?ment > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev Links: ------ [1] https://github.com/pivui/sopi [2] https://github.com/pivui/sopi/blob/master/demos/sopi_demo_LP.sce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephane.mottelet at utc.fr Mon Apr 3 11:04:59 2017 From: stephane.mottelet at utc.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?St=c3=a9phane_Mottelet?=) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:04:59 +0200 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] AMPL toolbox In-Reply-To: References: <1491200071.3433.1.camel@esi-group.com> <1491204646.3433.4.camel@esi-group.com> Message-ID: <8c325fcb-cf08-0d2e-4bdd-47573858d37b@utc.fr> Well, I was reacting to the "currently there is no planned work to port external toolboxes by ESI" because some of the actual *decent* internal computational stuff in Scilab (e.g. UMFpack) was initially developped as an external toolbox (by B. Pincon). As far as optimization stuff is concerned, the Sci_ipopt+Fmincon atoms packages should be considered by ESI. The problem is that some users (like me) keep trying to solve not "common use-cases" problems with Scilab. The last two cases where I had to use something else than optim are : 1-a non-linear optimization problem with linear inequality constraints (not that complicated, but optim does no handle this) where I had to switch to cfsqp (but stayed with Scilab here) 2-a difficult optimization problem where an interior-point method was the only successful one (here I had to switch to Matlab, sorry) I could give you other cases where some computational internals of Scilab are a bit outdated. In the past 10 years the focus has been made on things that are visible (interface, graphics, widgets, ...) and recently on language internals and much more. However, I think that the time has come to also update the stuff that would allows to do serious applied mathematics and not just solve "common use-cases". I hope that Scilab's future now depends on ESI is a good news. St?phane Mottelet Le 03/04/2017 ? 09:44, Pierre Vuillemin a ?crit : > While it is not internal (and not necessarily decent at this point > ^^), I am developing a toolbox for optimization > in Scilab. Its aim is firstly to > provide a convenient way to formulate optimization problems. > It is currently very limited (mainly dense linear optimization > problems > + > some quadratic problems) and paused due to some porting issue with > Scilab 6...but still, it may be usable at some point in the future :). > Regards, > Pierre > > > Le 03.04.2017 09:30, Cl?ment David a ?crit : >> Hi St?phane, >> >> Le lundi 03 avril 2017 ? 08:53 +0200, St?phane Mottelet a ?crit : >>> BTW are there plans to port a *decent* and internal optimization >>> package ? >> >> Why not but what do you mean by *decent* ? using an external solver ? >> >> IMHO Optimization is a wide topic where there is a lot of different >> solvers available. The current >> Scilab implementation might not be sufficient for all needs but cover >> some of the common use-cases. >> >> -- >> Cl?ment >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> dev at lists.scilab.org >> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -- D?partement de G?nie Informatique EA 4297 Transformations Int?gr?es de la Mati?re Renouvelable Universit? de Technologie de Compi?gne - CS 60319 60203 Compi?gne cedex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From n.strelkov at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 19:27:17 2017 From: n.strelkov at gmail.com (Nikolay Strelkov) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 20:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Arduino ATOM on Scilab 5.5.2 under Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Message-ID: Dear Scilab users! Recently I have installed Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, it has Scilab 5.5.2 in repositories . I planned to use it with Arduino Uno board, so I tried to install arduino toolbox (ATOMS) with -->atomsInstall('arduino') atomsInstallList: The package arduino is not available. !--error 10000 at line 51 of function atomsError called by : at line 76 of function atomsInstallList called by : at line 233 of function atomsInstall called by : atomsInstall('arduino') so I can't install it. I can't understand why this toolbox is not available . It has huge free-software popularization and educational potential. Isn't it? Someone opened ticket on Forge to indicate this problem. But with no results. It seems that Scilab-forge is half-dead. I remember the last discussion about Arduino and Scilab 5.5.2, it solves the problem, but it is not newbie-friendly to download, extract and run ATOM-archive manually. Please compile this toolbox for Scilab 5.5.2 and make it available as ATOM on all platforms. Moreover it is not available for Scilab 6 as explained in the new ticket and on ATOMS site . -- *With best regards,Ph.D., * *associate professor at MPEI ,IEEE member,maintainer of Mathieu functions toolbox for Scilab ,Nikolay Strelkov.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sgougeon at free.fr Sun Apr 9 20:06:17 2017 From: sgougeon at free.fr (Samuel Gougeon) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 20:06:17 +0200 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Arduino ATOM on Scilab 5.5.2 under Ubuntu 16.04 LTS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <161be882-88bf-5098-22fe-fe97d8a1d8ce@free.fr> Le 09/04/2017 ? 19:27, Nikolay Strelkov a ?crit : > Dear Scilab users! > > Recently I have installed Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, it has Scilab 5.5.2 in > repositories . > > I planned to use it with Arduino Uno board, so I tried to install > arduino toolbox (ATOMS) with > -->atomsInstall('arduino') > atomsInstallList: The package arduino is not available. > !--error 10000 > > at line 51 of function atomsError called by : > at line 76 of function atomsInstallList called by : > at line 233 of function atomsInstall called by : > atomsInstall('arduino') > > so I can't install it. > > I can't understand why this toolbox is not available > . > > It has huge free-software popularization and educational potential. > Isn't it? I am afraid that this rationale does not provide time to authors and maintainers, that are certainly already convinced: https://atoms.scilab.org/toolboxes/arduino/1.3 Moreover: http://mailinglists.scilab.org/AMPL-toolbox-tp4036093p4036122.html /Apr 03, 2017; 8:14am Cl?ment David-3 "FYI currently there is no planned work to port external toolboxes by ESI (formerly S/E). "// /... I am afraid that does not help a lot. Just kill your hope, or take your keyboard and do the job. :/ Samuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hacker at stoerk-tronic.com Tue Apr 18 07:50:26 2017 From: hacker at stoerk-tronic.com (Sebastian Hacker) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:50:26 +0200 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Need help on an attempt in generating an Xcos module for Scilab Message-ID: <93f03a3b-0941-59d0-03b4-7e0da99db88e@stoerk-tronic.com> Hello, I was trying to create an Xcos module for scilab. I used parts of the skeleton Toolbox, provided with scilab, in order to get started. I am able to create an own toolbox in Xcos, and add 2 Operators to it. But I can't edit the svg files, to adapt the in plan apperace or the input/output layout. Plus I kinda feel that the linkage between the modules is a bit beyond my grasp. I thought, that when you build it and include a "TBX_SUM_sci" to the lst, it will use the "TBX_SUM_sci" pictures, and the "TBX_SUM_sci.sci" macro file (with the "TBX_SUM_sci" function) to provide the Interface handler. Well. It seems, I can't make scilab execute the code provided in there. Plus one Symbol (SimuGen) always returns whenever I try to open It's gui : matrix: Input and output matrices must have the same number of elements. With input arguments, return / resume expects output arguments. Whereas the other one does not anything. Both have xxx_sim.sci filed+functions (wich now do the same, due to testing..). No matter what I do, I can switch the symbols at best.... I build them with the builder.sce file, which calls the buildmacros, which builds function buildmacros() macros_path = get_absolute_file_path("buildmacros.sce"); blocks = ["TBX_SUM_sci", "SimuGen"]; tbx_build_macros(TOOLBOX_NAME, macros_path); tbx_build_blocks(toolbox_dir, blocks); tbx_build_pal_loader(TOOLBOX_TITLE, blocks, toolbox_dir, macros_path) endfunction whereas SimuGen.sci (Always throws those errors, regardless of what I do). and TBX_sum_sci.sci (always does nothing, regardless of what I do). (Yes, I even tryed copying the Random number generator function into it) Of course, loading happens with the standart loader (and the etc/st_regelstrecke.start file). Which has the check for already loaded toobox deactivated, atm. So, my question is, where do I need to look for clues, on what is going wrong? I suspect the linkage between symbols and code being broken. But where? Or knows anyone if there is somewhere any tutorial on how to add an Xcos module? I haven't found any so far. And Yes, currently everything is handled inside those macro files. No external gateways or such stuff used. Juast noticed: if I load the skeleton toolbox afterwards, (Which has the TBX_SUM_sci Module), their TBX_SUM_sci Module will open the Random module (which code is also located inside my attempt of the TBX_SUM_sci symbol). Scilab 6.0.0 Release, Windows 7 x64 MSVC 10 compiler As little code as possible is provided, due to email size reasons. If someone needs more code to see, what is going wrong, just ask. Dear moderator: the old mail of that sort can be discarded, if not already done so. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, i. A. Sebastian Hacker Dipl.-Ing. (BA) Forschung & Entwicklung ST?RK-TRONIC St?rk GmbH & Co. KG Untere Waldpl?tze 6 D-70569 Stuttgart Tel: +(49) 711 68661 55 Fax: +(49) 711 68661 44 www.stoerk-tronic.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caioc2bolado at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 19:32:15 2017 From: caioc2bolado at gmail.com (Caio Souza) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:32:15 -0300 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Machine Learning Toolbox Message-ID: Hi, I have been thinking about the usability of the toolbox and independent of which algorithms we are going to have, would be interesting to have some simplified structure (like TensorFlow). Despite it being a lot of work to have such structure, (data, model, cost function, minimizer), it would make the toolbox easy to use and extend, having minimum impact to the usability. IMHO, this is something that should be defined before any coding starts, and also well explained to the student. I would like to hear from you what do you think, so we can start a discussion. Best, Caio SOUZA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lambdasoftware at yahoo.es Thu Apr 27 00:10:44 2017 From: lambdasoftware at yahoo.es (Amanda Osvaldo) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:10:44 -0300 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Machine Learning Toolbox In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1493244644.495.1.camel@yahoo.es> A Idea. Bindings for Machine Learning Frameworks, not necessary a Full Machine Learning implementation. Intel, for example, in GitHub have a optimized Theano implementation for Intel Xeon and Intel Xeon Phi processors.https://github.com/intel/T heano Bind SciLab with a Full and Optimized Machine Learning Implementation can allow users to use Scilab from the prototyping to the deploy of the production software. -- Amanda Osvaldo On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 14:32 -0300, Caio Souza wrote: > Hi, > > I have been thinking about the usability of the toolbox and > independent of which algorithms we are going to have, would be > interesting to have some simplified structure (like TensorFlow). > > Despite it being a lot of work to have such structure, (data, model, > cost function, minimizer), it would make the toolbox easy to use and > extend, having minimum impact to the usability. > > IMHO, this is something that should be defined before any coding > starts, and also well explained to the student. > > I would like to hear from you what do you think, so we can start a > discussion. > > > Best, > Caio SOUZA > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lambdasoftware at yahoo.es Fri Apr 28 01:03:35 2017 From: lambdasoftware at yahoo.es (Amanda Osvaldo) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:03:35 -0300 Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Machine Learning Toolbox In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1493334215.25207.1.camel@yahoo.es> Hi Caio, sorry for the late. I think we should ask ourselves what SciLAB's focus and?what audience are.I feel a lack of knowing what users of Scilab seek. Me, for example, I want to do everything from protyping to running the script on hundreds of Intel Xeon servers with the least possible effort.Even with less effort than it would have if the script were built in Python. I am sure that new data structures will expand the use of SciLAB. But what advantage will this bring to users?Python, as example, have already optimized data structures and libraries. -- Amanda Osvaldo On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 14:32 -0300, Caio Souza wrote: > Hi, > > I have been thinking about the usability of the toolbox and > independent of which algorithms we are going to have, would be > interesting to have some simplified structure (like TensorFlow). > > Despite it being a lot of work to have such structure, (data, model, > cost function, minimizer), it would make the toolbox easy to use and > extend, having minimum impact to the usability. > > IMHO, this is something that should be defined before any coding > starts, and also well explained to the student. > > I would like to hear from you what do you think, so we can start a > discussion. > > > Best, > Caio SOUZA > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev at lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: